Inference

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” But what counts as a “good and necessary consequence” and by what sort of logic may such consequences be “deduced”? I suspect that most would read “deduce” as endorsing syllogistic deductions from the text. (But whose logic is being endorsed? Aristotle’s? Ramus’? Bertrand Russell’s?)

What of good and necessary “typological” or “Christological” deductions? In his book on Mark, Joel Marcus points out that the phrase “it is written” is used in the NT not only to introduce direct quotations but also to introduce exegetical conclusions drawn from several texts. For instance, there is no OT text that says Elijah would suffer, as Mark 9:13 claims. Marcus suggests that this conclusion arises from Mark’s recognition that the Messiah whose way the new Elijah prepares will be a suffering Messiah. The logic is: The Son of Man shall suffer; Elijah comes first to prepare His way; thus, Elijah must, like the Son of Man, suffer.

Even if Marcus is wrong about the logic, he is right about the basic point: The OT does not say that “they will do to Elijah whatever they please,” and yet Mark says that this is “written.” How does he know? Perhaps he knows because he has inferred a conclusion from various OT texts; perhaps he knows because the color of “what is written” was modulated by its fulfillment in Christ (that is, his “proof” from the OT depends, circularly, on trusting that the story reaches its climax in Jesus).

However Mark arrived at this, what stands written involves not only the words of the text but “good and necessary consequences . . . deduced” from the text by some sort of Christo-logic.